Hey Tracey
There are many things that I like about both candidates. I just
happen to like more things about Obama so I went with him. However,
in the end it was her flip on her position about the war that decided
it for me. Frankly, Obama's position on the war seems less than
realistic but her's seemed dishonest. The war and it's consequences
(i.e. the shattered economy) were my main concern, immediately
followed by healthcare.
I think that HRC has a lot of qualities and a lot of flaws. I felt
the same way about her husband. I think that many of those flaws
would make excellent qualities in a President, again very much like
her husband. On many complaints, I feel she gets a raw deal. For
example, I don't believe for a second that Obama is any less
ambitious than HRC but no one seems to think that ambition in a man
is a flaw. However, ambition in a woman seems to be a deal breaker.
Frankly, I wouldn't be interested in a candidate who was not overly
ambitious. They would, in my estimation, lack the stones to do the
job.
I voted for Obama because I liked more things about his candidacy
than Clintons. However, I would not have been unhappy with Clinton as
the victor. Either candidate is an ideal choice over John McCain who
in my mind is a disaster as big as the present one we are all
suffereing through. Perhaps that clears things up.
I will add this, when the race comes down to the superdelegates at
the convention and Obama is denied the victory, I will feel very
betrayed by the process. I believe he is the clear choice of the
majority of democrats at this point and he should get the support of
the superdelegates where he has won primaries and caucuses.
--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, "Tracey de Morsella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Bosco:
>
> Thanks for the explanation and the wonderful complement. I was just
> kidding. I like playing Veep-stakes and even though you asked
Keith, I
> decided to give my view. If you like Clinton, I'm not sure I
understand why
> you voted for Obama.
>
